State v. Edwards , 2023 Ohio 4602 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Edwards, 2023-Ohio-4602.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-L-070
CITY OF EASTLAKE,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the
Willoughby Municipal Court
- vs -
JUSTIN M. EDWARDS, Trial Court No. 2022 CRB 01140
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: December 18, 2023
Judgment: Appeal dismissed
Jackie O’Donnell, City of Eastlake Prosecuting Attorney, 35150 Lakeshore Blvd.,
Eastlake, OH 44095 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Cory R. Hinton, 7351 Center Street, Suite 1, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Defendant-
Appellant).
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Justin M. Edwards (“appellant”), appeals from the
sentence imposed by the Willoughby Municipal Court on June 8, 2023. Appellant asserts
that trial court erred when it ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to a
sentence imposed by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas in a separate and
unrelated case. As appellant has completed the sentence imposed in this case, the
appeal is dismissed as moot.
{¶2} On May 23, 2022, a complaint was filed charging appellant with one count
of Assault, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). The matter
proceeded to a bench trial on April 11, 2023.
{¶3} At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found appellant guilty of assault.
Appellant then entered a guilty plea to a separate probation violation. The trial court
proceeded directly to sentencing. The court below noted appellant’s criminal history and
determined there had been a “failure of rehabilitation.” The trial court noted appellant was
on probation at the time he committed the offense, and that he did not take responsibility
for the assault. The trial court determined there was a high likelihood of recidivism.
{¶4} The trial court sentenced appellant to 60 days in the Lake County Jail on
the probation violation with credit for 60 days. On the assault case, the trial court imposed
a $250.00 fine and sentenced appellant to 180 days in jail with 30 days suspended.
Appellant was given credit for nine (9) days. The sentence was ordered to be served
consecutively to the sentence imposed by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas in a
separate and unrelated matter. The sentencing entry was filed on June 8, 2023.
According to the record, no motion or request to stay the execution of the sentence was
filed.
{¶5} Appellant timely appeals and raises a single assignment of error:
[1] The trial court erred when it ordered Defendant’s sentence
to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently, to his
previously ordered sentence.
{¶6} At the time of sentencing, appellant’s trial counsel indicated that appellant
had less than 50 days remaining on his unrelated sentence imposed by the Lake County
Common Pleas Court and had an approximate release date of May 28, 2023. The
2
Case No. 2023-L-070
appellant was sentenced to 150 days on the underlying assault which was ordered to be
served consecutively to the remaining time on the Lake County Common Pleas Court’s
sentence. Assuming appellant began serving his sentence imposed in this case on May
28, 2023, appellant completed his sentence in this case on or about October 16, 2023.1
This Court issued a show cause order on October 31, 2023, regarding the apparent
mootness of the sentencing issue as the sentence was likely served. On November 14,
2023, appellant’s counsel filed a response consenting to the dismissal of the appeal.
{¶7} In State v. Biscardi, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0003, 2019-Ohio-4653,
¶ 13, this Court noted:
“‘If an individual has already served his sentence, there is no
collateral disability or loss of civil rights that can be remedied
by a modification of the length of that sentence in the absence
of a reversal of the underlying conviction.’” State v. Coleman,
11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2019-T-0018, 2019-Ohio-4224, ¶16,
quoting State v. Beamon, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2000-L-160,
2001 WL 1602656, *1 (Dec. 14, 2001). Thus, when the prison
sentence has already been served and the underlying
conviction is not at issue, an assertion that the trial court erred
in determining the length of that sentence is a moot issue
because no relief can be granted. Id. See also State v.
Anderson, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2003-A-0131, 2005-Ohio-
4655 (applying the mootness doctrine to an appeal from a
defendant who had served his entire sentence for violating
community control but remained on post release control);
State v. Popov, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 10CA26, 2011-Ohio-
372, ¶8-9 (stating post release control has no effect on the
justiciability of an appeal that solely challenges the length of a
prison term imposed for violating community control).
{¶8} Like Biscardi, appellant raises a single assignment of error challenging the
imposition of consecutive sentences. Appellant does not challenge his conviction on the
assault charge. As such, “there is no relief this court can afford appellant.” Id. at ¶ 14.
1. This matter was submitted on the briefs on November 9, 2023.
3
Case No. 2023-L-070
Moreover, appellant’s November 14, 2023 Response to this Court’s October 31, 2023
Judgment Entry consents to the dismissal of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal pending
before us is moot, and therefore must be dismissed. Id., citing State v. Berdt, 29 Ohio
St.3d 3, 5 (1987).
{¶9} For the reasons set forth above, the appeal is dismissed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
4
Case No. 2023-L-070